Docstoc

Resettling New Orleans The First Full Picture from the Census

Document Sample
Resettling New Orleans The First Full Picture from the Census Powered By Docstoc
					The Brookings Institution
METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Resettling New Orleans: The First
Full Picture from the Census
William H. Frey, Audrey Singer and David Park
New 2006 American Community Survey data from the US Census Bureau provides a de-
tailed picture of the socio-demographic composition of New Orleans and its surround-
ing region, including who moved in and out of the area, approximately one full year
after the impacts of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Drawing on this survey as well as other
Census Bureau estimates and Internal Revenue Service migration data, this report finds:

   ■ One year after the storms, the city of New Orleans black population declined
     by 57 percent, while its white population decreased by 36 percent. Yet the
     city remained a majority minority community, with blacks making up 58 percent
     of its population. Meanwhile, as a whole, the seven parishes surrounding New
     Orleans lost a greater share of their white population.

   ■ New Orleans’ 2006 post-storm population was smaller, older, more educat-
     ed, less poor, with fewer renters, and fewer households with children than
     was recorded in Census 2000. To a lesser extent, this was also the case within
     the entire metropolitan area, suggesting that many with these characteristics
     have left, rather than relocated within the region.

   ■ Compared with “stayers” in the city of New Orleans, out-migrants were
     younger, poorer, more likely to be black, and more likely to have children.
     On the other hand in-migrants were more highly educated, more likely to be
     childless, and more likely to be white.

   ■ One year after the storm, black New Orleanians were most likely to have
     moved to the Houston metro area, whereas whites mostly moved elsewhere
     in the New Orleans metropolitan area. Low-income “displaced” residents were
     living in far flung metropolitan areas like Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta one year
     after Katrina. In-migrants to New Orleans were more likely to arrive from subur-
     ban parishes, which were also home to higher-income New Orleanians right after
     the storm.

While there have been many efforts to identify the number of people living in greater
New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, this report provides the “first full picture” of who
lived in the city and region after the storm, and what types of residents moved in,
stayed, or remain displaced one year after the storm. This analysis is critical for moving
beyond speculation to informed assessments about how best to serve both existing and
displaced households in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita.

                                  September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy   
    Introduction                                                               Background: General Population Change
                                                                               since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
    It has now been over two years since Hurricanes
    Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast,                                Before proceeding with our analyses of how the
    and especially the city of New Orleans. While                              population of New Orleans and other Gulf Coast
    painstaking efforts toward resettlement of this                            communities changed by race, income, age and
    city and its region have been made, little solid                           other characteristics, we provide an overview
    information exists on how the storm affected its                           of what we know to date about the size of the
    demographic make-up as well as who left the                                population there one year after the 2005 hur-
    region and where they went.                                                ricanes. These data are drawn from the Census
                                                                               Bureau’s population estimate program with
    Recent efforts by a number of organizations,                               the most recent estimates through July 2006
    such as the Greater New Orleans Community                                  (shown in Figure 1 and Map 1).
    Data Center (www.gnocdc.org), its partnership
    with Brookings on the New Orleans Index (Liu                               It is clear that the first year after the storm had a
    and Plyer, 2007), and several government, uni-                             sharp impact on what were relatively consistent
    versity, and private sector studies, have served                           growth patterns for both New Orleans itself and
    to close this informational gap to a degree.1 Yet                          the metropolitan area. Between 2000 and 2005,
    these data sources have not provided a full pic-                           the city experienced annual population declines
    ture of the demographic composition of New                                 of a little more than 1 per cent. Nearly one year
    Orleans, in comparison to the situation before                             after the storm, in July 2006, the city population
    the storms.                                                                was only about half of what it was in 2005 (from
                                                                               452,000 to 223,000). The 2006 estimate reflects
    The 2006 American Community Survey (ACS), a                                first the severe decline in the month immediate-
    nationwide survey taken by the US Census Bu-                               ly after the storm as well as the return of some
    reau represents the first large scale probability                          evacuees up until July 1, 2006.
    sample for New Orleans, and its metropolitan
    area. The ACS provides a statistically reliable as-                        Similarly, the metropolitan area lost about 22
    sessment of these areas’ 2006 demographic pro-                             percent of its population over the 2005–2006
    files that can be compared directly with similar                           period, after experiencing only negligible
    information collected at the 2000 Census.                                  growth for the earlier part of the decade. This
                                                                               population loss was primarily attributable to
    This report utilizes the 2006 ACS to assess how                            the loss from the city of New Orleans, but also
    New Orleans has changed since the storms. It                               due to significant losses to nearby parishes of St
    makes Census 2000/2006 ACS comparisons on                                  Bernard, Jefferson, and Plaquemines.
    a range of social and demographic measures.
    It also utilizes ACS data to examine selective                             The city New Orleans’ population losses were
    migration both out of, and into the city of New                            the greatest in the overall panorama of affected
    Orleans over the 2005–2006 period in order to                              Gulf Coast metropolitan areas, counties, and
    get a fuller picture on “who moved out” and                                parishes designated by FEMA as assistance
    “who is coming back.” This is supplemented                                 recipients in October 2005 and depicted on
    with additional analyses of migration flows into                           Map 1. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita affected
    and out of New Orleans with other parts of the                             2005–2006 losses in other metropolitan areas,
    country, using Internal Revenue Service county                             including Gulfport-Biloxi and Pascagoula in
    to county migration data.                                                  Mississippi, Lake Charles, LA, and Beaumont-


2     September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
        Figure 1. Annual Growth, New Orleans City and Selected Metros, 2000–2001 to 2005–2006

                               5.0


                               -5.0   2000-1   2001-2     2002-3       2003-4      2004-5      2005-6


                                                                                            Gulfport-Biloxi
                              -15.0                                                             Metro
                   Percent



                              -25.0                                                         New	Orleans	
                                                                                              Metro

                              -35.0


                              -45.0

                                                                                            New	Orleans	
                              -55.0                                                            City



                               5.0

                               4.5                                                 Baton	Rouge	
                                                                                      Metro
                               4.0

                               3.5
                    Percent




                               3.0
                                                                         Houston	Metro
                               2.5

                               2.0

                               1.5

                               1.0

                               0.5

                               0.0
                                      2000-1   2001-2     2002-3       2003-4      2004-5      2005-6


                Source: Authors’ analysis of US Census Bureau Population Esimates


Port Arthur, TX. Yet the map depicts other areas                   to 2005, shot up to 3.5 percent In 2005–2006.
which experienced extraordinary population                         Harris County, TX, within metropolitan Hous-
gains, as recipients of evacuees and out-mi-                       ton, saw its growth surge 123,000 in 2005–2006
grants of hurricane-impacted areas.                                compared with 67,000 in the previous year. Of
                                                                   course, many New Orleans evacuees went to
Two metropolitan areas with the greatest gains                     more far flung parts of the country, including
were Baton Rouge and Houston (See Figure 1).                       elsewhere in the South and beyond.
Baton Rouge’s population which grew negligi-
bly for most of this decade shot up by nearly 5                    This overview provides a backdrop of how
percent in the period 2005–2006; and Houston’s                     ongoing population shifts in New Orleans and
larger metropolitan population, which grew                         the broader region were disrupted by the hur-
at a healthy 2 to 3 percent annual pace prior                      ricanes. The present report builds on this, by


                                                        September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy   

                                           Population Change
                                           July 2005 to July 2006
                                                -10,000 or less (4 counties)
                                                                                                Arkansas
                                                -9,999 to -1,000 (6)
                                                -999 to 0 (23)
                                                1 to 1,000 (56)
                                                1,001 to 10,000 (22)                                                                        Mississippi
                                                greater than 10,000 (6)




September 2007 The Brookings Institution
                                                State boundary
                                                                                                                                                                           Alabama
                                                Select MSA boundaries



                                                Texas
                                                                                                   Louisiana
                                                                                                                                                                           Mobile, AL
                                                                                                                   Baton Rouge, LA
                                                                                                                                                               Pascagoula, MS

                                                                                                                                                     Gulfport-Biloxi, MS




Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
                                                                                       Lake Charles, LA
                                               Houston-Baytown-Sugarland, TX                                                                New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA
                                                                                                                                                                                                Map 1. New Orleans and Gulf Region Population Shifts, 2005–2006




                                                  Hurricane Rita (September 18-26, 2005)

                                                  Hurricane Katrina (August 23-31, 2005)                       Source: Authors' analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, National Weather Service
focusing on the changed socio-demographic                to be completed since the storms of 2005, pro-
profile of the city of New Orleans and its metro-        viding benchmark demographic, social, hous-
politan area, and how migration appears to be            ing, and economic characteristics of U.S. com-
affecting this change. Following a discussion of         munities, including the Gulf Coast population.
the data and methods, we present sections on             In this analysis we compare 2006 ACS estimates
the race-ethnic shifts that the city and region          with long-form estimates from Census 2000.
have undergone and how other socio-eco-
nomic and household attributes of these areas            The one-year estimates from the 2006 ACS
have been altered. These will be followed by             describe characteristics during calendar year
sections on how migration has impacted these             2006. These estimates can be thought of as
shifts: What are the racial and socio-economic           representing the average characteristics of the
attributes of out-migrants, non-migrants and             hurricane affected area during the time period
in-migrants; and what destinations were most             of January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006,
prominent among out-migrants and which ori-              when the area was experiencing significant
gins were most prominent among in-migrants.              population flux. In contrast, the long form esti-
                                                         mates in Census 2000 represent a point-in-time,
Data and Methodology                                     specifically April 1, 2000. They are interpreted
                                                         as describing the characteristics of the April 1st
This analysis is based on several new official           population and housing.
data sources. We begin with recently published
population estimates for the total resident pop-         Comparisons of 2006 ACS to Census 2000
ulation by parish and county from the Census             tabulations are based on a statistical test for
Bureau’s Population Estimates Program. These             the difference between two estimates. The
are used in assessing annual population chang-           test requires having both estimates and their
es between 2000 and 2006 for New Orleans and             standard errors. We followed guidelines pub-
selected metropolitan areas in Figure 1, popu-           lished by the Census Bureau on their website.
lation changes for counties in the Gulf Region           We followed the 2006 ACS Accuracy of the Data
depicted in Map 1 for the period, 2005–2006,             documentation (http://www.census.gov/acs/
and for metropolitan area counties and parishes          www/UseData/Accuracy/Accuracy1.htm), to
in this region, over the periods 2004–2005 and           obtain the standard error from the published 90
2005–2006, in the Appendix. They are also used           percent margin of error. Similarly, we calculated
for our analysis of race-ethnic change 2005–             standard errors for estimates from Census 2000
2006 in the city of New Orleans, its suburbs, and        sample or long form tabulations as put forth in
metropolitan area in Table 1 and Figure 2. The           Chapter 8 of the SF-3 Technical Documentation
reference dates for the estimates presented              (http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.
refer to July 1 of each year. Further information        pdf#page=933). Statistical tests to determine
on the Census Bureau’s population estimates              which estimates from 2000 and 2006 were
can be found at http://www.census.gov/popest/            statistically different from each other at the 90
estimates.php                                            percent confidence level, according to guide-
                                                         lines found in the 2006 ACS Accuracy of the
We use the Census Bureau’s annual nation-                Data document.
wide sample survey, the American Community
Survey (ACS) to analyze characteristics of the           We use Census 2000 data to reflect baseline
population for 2006. The 2006 ACS, released in           population characteristics prior to the storms,
September 2007, is the first nationwide survey           and 2006 ACS to show the characteristics of


                                              September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy   
    the population after the storms. We focus the                              Revenue Service (IRS) which maintains records
    analysis primarily on Orleans parish (city of New                          of all Individual Income Tax forms filed in each
    Orleans) and New Orleans Metropolitan area                                 year (Gross 2005).
    (Jefferson, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St.
    Charles, St. John the Baptist, and St. Tammany                             The data is compiled and organized by county
    parishes). However, we also include selected                               for each state. For each state, there is an inflow
    metros in the Gulf Coast region (Baton Rouge,                              and an outflow extract, which shows the fol-
    LA, Lake Charles, LA, Gulfport-Biloxi, MS; Pasca-                          lowing information about the returns in each
    goula, MS, Houston, TX ) where appropriate.                                county: the number of migrant returns (used
                                                                               to estimate households); the number of ex-
    Our analysis of migration using the 2006 ACS                               emptions attached to these returns (used to
    requires special mention. For this, we employed                            estimate individuals); the aggregate adjusted
    special tabulations of the ACS question “Where                             gross income of the migrating returns; and the
    did this person live one year ago” for 2006 re-                            median adjusted gross income of these returns.
    spondents in order to determine the moves be-                              (Adjusted gross income (AGI) is the amount of
    tween 2005 and 2006 of persons who were one                                total annual income that is taxable.) There is
    year of age or older. Since the ACS respondents                            also a line item for non-migrants with their rela-
    are spread across the calendar year, it is the case                        tive incomes (Gross 2005).
    that those New Orleans residents who relocated
    between September and December 2005 will                                   For a migrant or non-migrant to be captured in
    not be reported as out-migrants, if they were                              year-to-year migration counts, households or
    interviewed during September–December                                      individuals must have filed tax returns in con-
    2006. For some of the latter their residence one                           secutive years. For example, an individual who
    year ago would be outside of New Orleans. In                               filed in tax years 2005 and 2006 would appear
    like manner, we will understate in-migrants to                             in the 2005 to 2006 migration data while an
    New Orleans for some respondents who had                                   individual who filed only in tax year 2005 would
    lived in New Orleans between January and                                   not. In addition, households or individuals with
    August 2005, moved out during September                                    low incomes with little or no tax liability that
    2005–December 2005, and returned in 2006. If                               typically are not required to file and do not file
    such respondents were interviewed between                                  also may not appear in the counts.
    January and August 2006, they will report living
    in New Orleans at both points even if they had                             In the case of our New Orleans migration analy-
    left and moved back. There is no exact way to                              sis, there are limitations to using the IRS data. As
    gauge the level of underreporting of out-mi-                               mentioned earlier, those tax filers who did not
    grants or in migrants. However, since our main                             file returns in consecutive years do not appear
    purpose is to compare the socio-demographic                                in our analysis. Although nationally tax returns
    attributes among in migrants, out-migrants,                                may represent roughly 90 percent of the popu-
    and non-migrants, rather then to track the exact                           lation, at smaller levels of geography such as
    number of moves, these data can be used for                                a county this may vary greatly. In the case of
    such an analysis.                                                          New Orleans and the catastrophic impact of the
                                                                               levee failures, many residents of the city and the
    To get a sense of specific origin and destination                          surrounding metropolitan area were affected
    patterns of recent migration in and out of New                             not only physically in their damaged homes and
    Orleans city, we turn to area-to-area migration                            neighborhoods, but financially as well, in the
    data within the United States from the Internal                            permanent or temporary loss of a wage earning


     September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
job. These great losses may have pushed some                    Turning to the suburbs, however, we find a very
residents into the little or no tax liability non-fil-          different picture. While the suburbs, like the city
ing category, thus excluding them from the IRS                  of New Orleans, sustained an overall population
migration counts and our analysis.                              decline between 2000 and 2006, the suburban
                                                                white population declined at a faster rate than
Findings                                                        blacks. This reflects hurricane related out move-
                                                                ment from the primarily white St. Bernard and
A. In the year after the hurricane hit, the New                 Jefferson Parishes. The result, however, was a
Orleans black population declined by 57 per-                    very small change in the overall racial composi-
cent, while its white population decreased by                   tion of the six parishes surrounding Orleans Par-
36 percent.                                                     ish, which remained approximately two-thirds
                                                                white in both 2005 and 2006.
One of the most talked about demographic
impacts of Katrina’s evacuation was the impact                  In its entirety, the metropolitan area did show a
that it would have on the city’s racial and ethnic              noticeable decline in its black population share
composition. Speculation that the city might                    from 38 percent in 2005 to 31 percent in 2006,
shift from its traditional black majority to a mi-              as the white share increased from 53 percent to
nority black population was voiced by analysts                  65 percent.2 Thus both the city and metropoli-
and politicians, with important implications for                tan area showed a substantial decline in their
the city’s economic, social, and political fabric.              black populations and proportions over the
Yet, earlier surveys could not make an accurate                 course of a single year, even after the return of
assessment of this composition until August                     many evacuees.
2007 when census released race and ethnic
estimates for July 2006.
                                                 Table 1. Race-Ethnic Change: New Orleans City, Suburbs,
These results, shown in Table 1 make             and Metro
plain that the city of New Orleans did,          	    	                     	         	       	         	
in fact, show a disproportionate loss of         	    	                     	 Percent
                                                                       2005      2006 Change Change
blacks by July 2006, with the popula-            New	Orleans	City	          	         	       	         	
tion reduced to129,000 from 303,000 in
July 2005. This 57 percent decline out-          	   Whites	        119,620	 76,422	 -43,198	                               -36.1
paced the 36 percent decline of whites.          	   Blacks	        302,580	 129,192	 -173,388	                             -57.3
However, it was not enough to reduce             	   Hispanics	       14,536	  9,140	   -5,396	                             -37.1
                                                 	   	                      	       	         	
the city’s black population below ma-            New	Orleans	Suburbs	       	       	         	                                      	
jority status. The 2006 after-storm race-
ethnic composition, shown in Figure 2            	   Whites	        583,316	 536,880	                     -46,436	            -8.0
indicates that the city of New Orleans’          	   Blacks	        193,092	 183,424	                      -9,668	            -5.0
black share decreased to 58 percent              	   Hispanics	      51,916	 49,165	                       -2,751	            -5.3
                                                 	   	                     	        	                            	
from 67 percent the year before. At              New	Orleans	Metro	        	        	                            	                   	
the same time the white population
share increased to 34 percent, up from           	       Whites	             702,936	 613,302	 -89,634	                     -12.8
26 percent, while the Hispanic popu-             	       Blacks	             495,672	 312,616	 -183,056	                    -36.9
lation increased by 1 percent, and all           	       Hispanics	           66,452	 58,305	    -8,147	                    -12.3
other race-ethnic groups remained the            Source: Authors’ analysis of US Census Bureau Population Estimates
same.


                                                     September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy   7
        Figure 2. New Orleans Race and Ethnicity, 2005 and 2006

                                                     New Orleans City

                               2005 City                                                   2006 City
                             4%
                                                                                         4% 4%
                          3%
                                               26%
                                                                                                         34%




                                                                                   58%
                       67%



                                                     New Orleans Suburbs

                           2005 Suburbs*                                                 2006 Suburbs*

                          6% 4%                                                          6% 4%



                 22%                                                           23%



                                                 68%                                                     67%




                                          New Orleans Metropolitan Area

                              2005 Metro                                                  2006 Metro

                            5% 4%                                                        6% 3%




                                                      53%                      31%
                 38%
                                                                                                          60%




                                          White**          Black**           Hispanic       Other**

        *includes	the	parishes	of	Jefferson,	Plaquemines,	St.	Bernard,	St.	Charles,	St.	John	the	Baptist,	and	St.	
        Tammany
        **Non-Hispanic	members	of	race
        Source: Authors' analysis of U.S. Bureau Population Estimates


   September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
One aspect of these estimates that may appear             ropolitan area of New Orleans were both sub-
surprising in light of many news accounts over            stantially smaller and more white in 2006 than
the post hurricane period is the relatively small         before the hurricane, we now turn to examin-
Hispanic population that appears in the Census            ing how other aspects of their socioeconomic
Bureau’s 2006 estimates for New Orleans city              profiles were altered in the first year after the
and its metropolitan areas. According to these            storm. Much speculation has been given about
estimates, the Hispanic population declined in            the income profile of the population in Orleans
both areas between 2005 and 2006 and rep-                 Parish, since Hurricane Katrina and subsequent
resents only a small 4–6 percent share of both            flooding flattened homes in the Lower Ninth
populations. Hispanic shares in this range                Ward and other low-income neighborhoods,
were reported in both the Census Bureau’s 2006            and officials have yet to re-open many of the
population estimates as well as the 2006 Ameri-           public housing developments in the city Does
can Community Survey. This is the case, despite           this mean the smaller post-hurricane popula-
the fact that both data sources included group            tion is somewhat better off financially? There
quarter populations as well as household popu-            is also concern about the presence or return of
lations living in permanent residences. How-              households with children, given the slow re-
ever, any group quarters that were established            building of the city’s school system.
after the ACS sampling frame was established
were not included in the survey. To the extent            As discussed above, the 2006 ACS allows us to
that Latino workers moved to New Orleans after            look at the “after” population of 2006 on these
the storm and lived in hastily arranged housing,          and other dimensions, and compare it with the
it is very likely, that that the transitory nature        demographic snapshot that was taken with the
of temporary working conditions of primarily              2000 Census. We first look at the city of New
Hispanic construction and service workers has             Orleans with respect to the before and after age
eluded traditional estimation and survey tech-            composition shown in Figure 3. What is clear is
niques.3                                                  that post-storm New Orleans was an older city.
                                                          The “under 45” population became smaller, from
Overall, however, the census estimates make               67 percent of the population in 2000 to just
plain that the city of New Orleans sustained a            56 percent in 2006, with children and young
much more substantial loss of its black popula-           adults comprising a significantly lower share of
tion than of its whites, such that large numbers          the population. This reflects a smaller return
had not returned by July 2006. The black loss,            of young people and families with children, a
however, was not sufficient to shift the racial           phenomenon which will be addressed more
composition of the city enough to affect its “ma-         fully later.
jority minority” status. The fact that the bulk of
the black loss occurred in the city rather than           Beyond the changing age distribution, the
the suburbs, left the suburban racial composi-            measures shown in Table 2 reveal that the city is
tion relatively unchanged.                                also more highly educated with a significantly
                                                          higher percentage of adults who are college
B. New Orleans’ 2006 post-storm population                graduates and a lower share who have not
was smaller, older, more educated, less poor,             graduated from high school. This reflects the
with fewer renters, and fewer households with             out-migration of people with fewer resources.
children than was recorded in Census 2000.                Nonetheless, the “after” population has a higher
                                                          share of adults with only high school diplomas
Having established that both the city and met-            than was the case in 2000.


                                               September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy   
     A more direct measure of income is an assess-                               pre- and post-storm labor force participation,
     ment of the poverty population. By 2006, the                                and we found that there were similar levels of
     share of the population in New Orleans that is                              participation in 2006 as in 2000.
     poor dropped by nearly 6 percentage points
     from 2000. The poverty percentages are lower                   It is clear that the migration flows, both out and
     for whites as well as blacks, though only the                  in, impacted the city of New Orleans in ways
     former is statistically significant. Further, it is            that made the post-Katrina population some-
     clear that homeowners were more likely to have                 what older, better educated, and less poor, with
     stayed or returned one year after Katrina.                     a higher share of homeowners and households
                                                                    without children. And while some of these attri-
     Aside from these measures of social well be-                   butes—higher education, greater home owner-
     ing, we also examine which household types                     ship and fewer low income people—could be
     lived in the city and region. The measures on                  taken as a positive sign for development, it is
     Table 2 make plain that households with chil-                  troubling that those more dynamic segments of
     dren, both married couples and female-headed                   the community—younger people and families
     households, were less represented in the city                  with children are less well represented in the
     in 2006 than before the hurricane. This reflects               post-storm city.
     the reluctant in-movement of households with                   A similar comparison of 2006 with 2000 attri-
     children. More represented in the post-hur-                    butes for New Orleans metropolitan area is pre-
     ricane population are married couples without                  sented in Table 3. For the most part, the same
     children and persons living alone.                             post-hurricane demographic changes seen for
                                                                    the city are evident for the metropolitan area.
     One additional attribute that we looked at was                 The metropolitan area was also somewhat older
                                                                                                      in 2006 such
       Figure 3. New Orleans City Age Distribution                                                    that its under 45
                                                                                                      population was
              30.0
                                                                                                      reduced from
                             *                                                                        65 percent to 59
              25.0
                                                                                                      percent (data
                                                                                                      not shown) As
              20.0
                                                                                                      with the city, the
        Percent




                                                                      *                               post-hurricane
              15.0                                          *
                                                                                           *          metro area is left
                                                 *                               *
                                                                                                      with a popula-
              10.0
                                                                                                      tion that is more
                                                                                                      highly educated,
                5.0
                                                                                                      less poor, with
                                                                                                      higher shares
                0.0
                                                                                                      of homeown-
                     Less	than 18	to	24 25	to	34 35	to	44 45	to	54 55	to	64 65	years
                                                                                                      ers and childless
                      18	years     years     years      years     years      years    and	over
                                                                                                      households. This
                                                     2000 2006                                        suggests that a
                                                                                                      good part of the
      *Statistically different from 2000 value at 90% confidence level                                city’s outmigrat-
      Source: Authors’ analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 2006 American Community Survey                  ing population


0      September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
Table 2. Selected Characteristics for New Orleans City: 2000 Census and 2006 ACS

Person and Household                                            (% unless otherwise noted)
Characteristics                                           2000 Census 2006 ACS Difference

Education Attainment (population 25 years and older)	    	                           	
	 Less	than	High	School	                             25.3	                       18.9	                  *
                                                                                                    -6.4	
	 High	School	                                       23.5	                       27.4	                  *
                                                                                                     3.9	
	 Some	College	                                      25.5	                       22.0	                  *
                                                                                                    -3.5	
	 Bachelors	or	higher	                               25.8	                       31.7	                  *
                                                                                                     5.9	
	 TOTAL**	                                         100.0	                       100.0	

Employment Status (population 16 and over)	                        	                 	
	 In	labor	force	                                              57.8	             59.0	               1.2
	 Not	in	labor	force	                                          42.2	             41.0	              -1.2
	 TOTAL**	                                                    100.0	            100.0	

Unemployed (civilian labor force)	                               9.4	             12.0	             2.5*

Households by Type	                                                	                 	
	 Family Households (families)	                                60.5	             54.6	             -5.9	*
							 With	own	children	under	18	years	                      30.1	             17.7	            -12.4	*
	 	     Married-couple	families	                               31.7	             33.5	              1.8
							 	   With	own	children	under	18	years	                  13.8	             10.0	             -3.8	*
	 	     Female	householder,	no	husband	present	                24.3	             17.0	             -7.3	*
							 	   With	own	children	under	18	years	                  14.3	              6.9	             -7.4	*
	 Non-family households	                                       39.5	             45.4	              5.9	*
	 	     Household	living	alone	                                33.1	             37.8	              4.7	*
							 65	years	and	over	                                      9.4	             10.9	              1.5
	 TOTAL	 	                                                    100.0	            100.0	

Individuals Below Poverty by Race/Ethnicity
	 White	(Non-Hispanic)	                                         11.0	              9.0	             -2.0	*
	 Black	(overlap	with	Hispanic)	                                35.0	             30.6	             -4.4
	 Hispanic	                                                     22.1	              N/A	             N/A
	 All	individuals	                                              27.9	             22.2	             -5.7	*

Home Ownership by Race/Ethnicity
	 White	(Non-Hispanic)	                                         55.9	             61.5	              5.6	*
	 Black	(overlap	with	Hispanic)	                                41.9	             41.4	             -0.5
	 Hispanic	                                                     40.0	             47.4	              7.4
	 All	individuals	                                              46.5	             50.7	              4.2	*

*Significant at 90% confidence level
**Totals	may	not	add	up	to	100	due	to	rounding	
Source: Authors’ analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data




                                           September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy   
           Table 3. Selected Characteristics for the New Orleans Metropolitan Area: 2000 Census and
           2006 ACS

           Person and Household                                                       (% unless otherwise noted)
           Characteristics                                                      2000 Census 2006 ACS Difference

           Education Attainment (population 25 years and older)
           	 Less	than	High	School	                             22.3	                              17.4	   -4.9	*
           	 High	School	                                       28.1	                              31.1	    3.0	*
           	 Some	College	                                      26.9	                              26.2	   -0.7
           	 Bachelors	or	higher	                               22.8	                              25.3	    2.5	*
           	 TOTAL**	                                         100.0	                              100.0

           Employment Status (population 16 and over)
           	 In	labor	force	                                                          61.3	        61.8	    0.5
           	 Not	in	labor	force	                                                      38.7	        38.3	   -0.4
           	 TOTAL**	                                                                100.0	       100.0	

           Unemployed (civilian labor force)	                                              6.7	     7.9	   1.1

           Households by Type
                 Family Households (families)	                                        67.7	        68.0	    0.3
           	 						With	own	children	under	18	years	                                  33.5	        28.0	   -5.5	*
           	 	      Married-couple	families	                                          45.4	        48.8	    3.4	*
           							  	    With	own	children	under	18	years	                            21.0	        19.0	   -1.9	*
           	 	      Female	householder,	no	husband	present	                           17.9	        13.8	   -4.1	*
           							  	    With	own	children	under	18	years	                            10.4	         6.6	   -3.7	*
           	 Non-family households	                                                   32.3	        32.0	   -0.3
           	 				 Household	living	alone	                                             27.2	        26.7	   -0.5
           							  65	years	and	over	                                                 8.5	         8.7	    0.2
           	 TOTAL	 	                                                                100.0	       100.0	

           Individuals Below Poverty by Race/Ethnicity
           	 White	(Non-Hispanic)	                                                         8.7	     7.9	   -0.8
           	 Black	(overlap	with	Hispanic)	                                               33.0	    27.8	   -5.2	*
           	 Hispanic	                                                                    16.2	    14.1	   -2.1
           	 All	individuals	                                                             18.3	    14.8	   -3.5	*

           Home Ownership by Race/Ethnicity
           	 White	(Non-Hispanic)	                                                        71.5	    76.5	      *
                                                                                                           5.0	
           	 Black	(overlap	with	Hispanic)	                                               45.4	    49.8	      *
                                                                                                           4.4	
           	 Hispanic	                                                                    50.6	    58.5	      *
                                                                                                           7.9	
           	 All	households	                                                              61.5	    68.3	      *
                                                                                                           6.8	

           *Significant at 90% confidence level
           **Totals	may	not	add	up	to	100	due	to	rounding	
           Source: Authors’ analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data




2   September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
left the entire region rather than moving to the                 Specifically, we look at attributes of out-mov-
suburbs—a subject taken up in a later section.                   ers from New Orleans in 2005–2006 and com-
                                                                 pare them with those who stayed in the city
C. Compared with “stayers” in the city of New                    over that period. We also make a comparison
Orleans, out-migrants were younger, poorer,                      between these stayers and the much smaller
more likely to be black, and more likely to                      number of persons who moved into the city in
have children.                                                   2005–2006. The data for these comparisons are
                                                                 presented in Figures 4 and 5 and Tables 4 and 5.
In this section we focus on the city of New
Orleans, and turn from a static “before and after”               The race-ethnic selectivity of migration for New
the storm comparison of its sociodemographic                     Orleans is depicted in Figure 4, which shows
profile toward a look at the migration dynamics                  that out-migrants from New Orleans were more
that contributed to this change. This is possible                likely to be black and less likely to be white
with the 2006 American Community Survey                          than non-migrants. Equally important is that
because it queries residents on where they                       the in-migrants to the city are made up of a
resided exactly one year earlier. As discussed in                flow where blacks and whites are equally rep-
the Data and Methodology section, this survey                    resented. In addition, compared with non-mi-
misses a subset of moves because of the timing                   grants there is a higher percentage of Hispanics
of interviews over the course of the year. How-                  among the in-migrants.
ever, it should give a good sense of how socio-
demographic attributes differ between movers                     In terms of scale, the estimate of the number of
and stayers/returnees.                                           migrants who left the city is similar in size to the
                                                                 population that stayed; whereas the in-migrant


   Figure 4. Race-Ethnicity of New Orleans In-Migrants, Non-Migrants and Out-Migrants, 2005–2006


        100%                         4%                             3%                                 10% **
         90%                         2%**                           1%                                  2%
                                     2%                             3%                                  1% **
         80%
         70%
                                                                    60%
                                                                                                       43% **
         60%
                                     70%**
         50%
         40%
         30%
         20%                                                                                           44% **
                                                                    33%
                                     21% **
         10%
          0%
                      Out-Migrants                   Non-Migrants                    In-Migrants

                                 White*     Black*     Asian*     Other*     Hispanic

   *Non-Hispanic	members	of	race	group
   **Significantly different from nonmigrants at 90% confidence level
   Source: Authors’ analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 2006 American Community Survey data



                                                      September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy 
                Figure 5. Education of New Orleans In-Migrants**, Non-Migrants and Out-Migrants,
                2005–2006

               Total

                       100%
                        90%
                                                       23%**                        32%                   32%
                        80%
                        70%
                        60%
                                                      27% **                       22%                    20%
                        50%
                        40%
                                                      28%                          26%                    36%
                        30%
                        20%
                        10%
                                                       21%                          20%                   12%**
                          0%
                                     Out-Migrants                 Non-Migrants              In-Migrants




               Blacks

                       100%
                                                       15%                          13%                    7%**
                       90%
                       80%
                                                       30% **                        23%                  22%
                       70%
                       60%
                       50%
                                                       33%                          33%                   52%
                       40%
                       30%
                       20%
                       10%
                                                      22% **                        31%                   19%**
                         0%
                                     Out-Migrants                 Non-Migrants              In-Migrants


                                                          30%
                                                          33%7%
                                                            52%
                                                           33%


                  Less	than	High	School              High	School	Grad                Some	College         College	Grad
                                                           31%
                                                            19%
                                                          22%      15%
                                                                         13%
                                                            22%
                                                            23%




             *Non-Hispanic	members	of	race	group
             **Significantly different from nonmigrants at 90% confidence level
             Source: Authors’ analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 2006 American Community Survey data




   September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
Table 4. New Orleans: Profiles of Out-Migrants, Non-Migrants, and In-Migrants, 2005–2006
	                                                                     Out-Migrants     In-Migrants
                                      Out        Non-          In-           minus          minus
Profiles                         Migrants    Migrants    Migrants     Non-Migrants Non-Migrants

Age**	                                      	              	               	        	              		                     	
	 1	to	14	years	                        19.4	          18.2	           10.3	        	           1.2	 	               -7.9	*
	 15	to	24	years	                       17.9	          13.8	           31.0	        	           4.1	*	               17.3	*
	 25	to	34	years	                       15.6	           9.1	           12.7	        	           6.6	*	                3.6	*
	 35	to	44	years	                       14.6	          12.7	           13.5	        	           1.9	*	                0.8
	 45	to	54	years	                       13.6	          17.4	            9.9	        	          -3.8	*	               -7.4	*
	 55	to	64	years	                        8.9	          13.8	           12.3	        	          -4.8	*	               -1.4
	 65	years	and	over	                    10.0	          15.1	           10.1	        	          -5.2	*	               -5.0	*
	 		Total	                             100.0	         100.0	          100.0	        	              		
	 	                                         	              	               	        	              		
Household Type***	                          	              	               	        	              		                      	
	 Married	couple,	with	children	        13.9	          12.1	            4.3	        	           1.8	 	                -7.8	*
	 Married	couple,	no	children	          13.6	          22.7	           29.3	        	          -9.1	*	                 6.6
	 Single	householder	with	children		    21.9	          11.3	           12.0	        	          10.6	*	                 0.8
	 Single	householder,	no	children		      8.1	          10.7	            8.3	        	          -2.6	 	                -2.3
	 Nonfamily	household	                  42.4	          43.2	           45.9	        	          -0.8	 	                 2.7
	 		Total	                             100.0	         100.0	          100.0	        	              		
	 	                                         	              	               	        	              		
Income to Poverty Ratio****	                	              	               	        	              		                        	
	 Under	1.0	                            37.7	          21.0	           26.8	        	          16.7	*	                 5.9
	 1.0	to	1.49	                          12.0	          13.1	           11.4	        	          -1.2	 	                -1.8
	 1.5	to	1.99	                           8.8	           8.6	            7.8	        	           0.2	 	                -0.8
	 2.0	to	2.99	                          13.2	          13.6	           13.0	        	          -0.4	 	                -0.6
	 3.0	and	above	                        28.4	          43.7	           41.0	        	         -15.3	*	                -2.7
	 		Total	                             100.0	         100.0	          100.0	        	              		
	 	                                         	              	               	        	              		
Total Population**	                 197,130	       195,690	         23,730	         	              		
(90%	margin	of	error)	           (+/-12,310)	    (+/-4,062)	     (+/-3,663)	        	              		

*Statistically significant at 90% confidence level
*
	 *Persons	age	1	and	above	
	 **Householders	classed	by	household	type		
*
*
	 ***Persons	age	1	and	above,	for	whom	poverty	status	is	determined.		Those	with	a	ratio	under	1.0	are	under	
the official poverty line.
Source: Authors’ analysis of US Census Bureau 2006 American Commuity Survey




                                                September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy 
      Table 5. New Orleans: Profiles of Black Out-Migrants, Non-Migrants, and In-Migrants, 2005–2006
                                                                            Out-Migrants      In-Migrants
                                            Out        Non-          In-           minus           minus
      Profiles                         Migrants    Migrants    Migrants     Non-Migrants Non-Migrants

      Age**	                                        	                         	           		                 		               	
      	   1	to	14	years	                        22.3	                     23.8	       17.1	 	            -1.4	 	         -6.6
      	   15	to	24	years	                       20.0	                     14.3	       28.0	 	                *
                                                                                                          5.7	 	         13.7	*
      	   25	to	34	years	                       13.7	                      8.4	        5.1	 	                *
                                                                                                          5.3	 	         -3.4	*
      	   35	to	44	years	                       13.0	                     10.8	       13.3	 	                *
                                                                                                          2.3	 	          2.5	
      	   45	to	54	years	                       14.7	                     18.0	        9.1	 	                *
                                                                                                         -3.2	 	         -8.8	*
      	   55	to	64	years	                        8.6	                     13.2	       15.7	 	                *
                                                                                                         -4.5	 	          2.5
      	   65	years	and	over	                     7.5	                     11.6	       11.7	 	                *
                                                                                                         -4.0	 	          0.1
      	   		Total	                             100.0	                    100.0	      100.0	 	                		
      	   	                                         	                         	           		                 		
      Household Type***	                            	                         	           		                 		               	
      	   Married	couple,	with	children	        13.8	                     10.6	        3.9	 	             3.2	 	         -6.7	*
      	   Married	couple,	no	children	          10.9	                     15.9	       30.5	 	                *
                                                                                                         -5.0	 	         14.6
      	   Single	householder	with	children		 26.8	                        18.7	       25.6	 	                *
                                                                                                          8.1	 	          6.9
      	   Single	householder,	no	children		      9.5	                     16.9	       16.7	 	                *
                                                                                                         -7.4	 	         -0.2
      	   Nonfamily	household	                  39.0	                     38.0	       23.3	 	             1.0	 	        -14.7
      	   		Total	                             100.0	                    100.0	      100.0	 	                		
      	   	                                         	                         	           		                 		
      Income to Poverty Ratio****	                  	                         	           		                 		                 	
      	   Under	1.0	                            44.9	                     29.3	       34.5	 	                *
                                                                                                         15.6	 	          5.1
      	   1.0	to	1.49	                          12.3	                     14.8	       14.1	 	            -2.5	 	         -0.7
      	   1.5	to	1.99	                           8.9	                     10.4	        7.2	 	            -1.4	 	         -3.2
      	   2.0	to	2.99	                          11.7	                     15.2	       16.8	 	            -3.5	 	          1.6
      	   3.0	and	above	                        22.2	                     30.3	       27.5	 	                *
                                                                                                         -8.1	 	         -2.8
      	   		Total	                             100.0	                    100.0	      100.0	 	                		
      	   	                                         	                         	           		                 		
      Black Population**	                   138,505	                  117,315	     10,175	 	                 		
      (90%	margin	of	error)	             (+/-10,535)	               (+/-3,512)	 (+/-3,186)	 	                		

      *Statistically significant at 90% confidence level
      *
      	 *Persons	age	1	and	above	
      *
      	 **Householders	classed	by	household	type		
      	 ***Persons	age	1	and	above,	for	whom	poverty	status	is	determined.
      *
      Source: Authors’ analysis of US Census Bureau 2006 American Commuity Survey



     population is roughly one-eighth of the non-mi-                            migrant population in the sense that a larger
     grant population (See bottom panel of Table 4).                            share are not college graduates. In-migrants
     Thus the in-migration flow over the 2005–2006                              have a similar level of college graduates as the
     period had a small impact.                                                 non-migrating population but a significantly
                                                                                smaller share of high school dropouts. As a
     Figure 5 makes a similar comparison for the                                result of both flows, migration had the impact
     education attainment of adult movers and                                   of “upgrading” the educational attainment
     stayers, ages 25 and over. Overall out-migrants                            of the population, at least as captured in the
     are somewhat less well educated than the non-                              2005–2006 period.


     September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
The pattern for blacks, also shown in Figure               especially relevant to speculation that some
5, is somewhat different. Black out-migrants               of the less well off and minority populations
differ from non-migrants in that they are over-            were transported to far flung areas, via evacuee
represented by persons with some college, and              assistance programs or to live with relatives. It
underrepresented by high school dropouts.                  was suggested that these migrants, in particu-
Black in-migrants are overrepresented by those             lar, would be less likely to receive information
who only hold a high school diploma. Overall               about returning to New Orleans and would
these data show that black out-migration was               have fewer resources to make a move back to
not as selective of the least-well educated as is          the city.
commonly perceived.
                                                           To begin, we examine Internal Revenue Service
The attributes for migrants and non-migrants               migration flow patterns for out-migrants from
for the overall population are shown in Table              the city in New Orleans for 2004–2005, the year
4. These data make plain why our earlier com-              before the hurricane, and 2005–2006 to capture
parisons showed the city became older, more                the out-migrants. The latter out-migration flow
childless, and less poor after the storm. That             is more than six times as large and, as shown in
is, compared with non-migrants, out-migrants               Figure 6, and the destinations are quite differ-
are disproportionately younger, single parent              ent. While pre-Katrina, nearly two thirds of city
householders with children, and more likely                out-migrants went to other parishes within the
to be poor. As compared with nonmigrants, a                New Orleans metropolitan area, less then one
smaller number of in-migrants are less likely to           fifth of 2005–2006 out-migrant destinations
be married couples with children. In-migrants              relocated within the metro area. Instead, 82
are more likely to be teens and young adults               percent of migrants located outside the New
than the non-migrating population; however                 Orleans metro area, with 37 percent locating
the much larger numbers of young out-mi-                   somewhere in Texas.
grants dwarfs this effect.
                                                           Table 6 lists the top destination parishes and
Table 5 shows a similar analysis restricted to             counties for each of these two periods. In
black movers and stayers for the city of New               2004–2005, nearby Jefferson parish was the top
Orleans. As with whites, black-out-migrants                destination for New Orleans out-migrants while
were most likely to be young and poor, and not             in 2005–2006, Harris County in the Houston
childless and in-migrants were more likely to be           metropolitan area was the primary migrant des-
childless couples. It is clear that these patterns         tination. The next most popular destinations
for blacks drive the overall patterns for the city.        the year before Katrina were Jefferson Parish
                                                           and East Baton Rouge Parish in the Baton Rouge
D. The primary metropolitan destination for                metropolitan area. But the year after Katrina,
black New Orleans out-migrants was Houston,                the destinations were far more scattered with
whereas for whites, most moved elsewhere in                counties in the Dallas, San Antonio, Atlanta,
the New Orleans metropolitan area.                         Memphis, and Austin regions among the top 15
                                                           destinations.
While the previous section discussed the so-
ciodemographic attributes of all in-migrants               A more complete view of hurricane year desti-
and out-migrants to New Orleans city, this                 nations is displayed in Map 2 which shows the
section examines the origins and destinations              breadth of moves taken throughout nearby
of migrants to and from New Orleans. This is               states. Also depicted in this map, are average


                                                September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy 7
       Table 6. New Orleans City Greatest Out Migration Counties, 2004–2005 and 2005–2006
                                                                   Percentage      Average                     Average
                                                 Metropolitan         of All     Household                    Household
       Rank County/Parish               State       Area          Out-Migrants AGI (2005 $)                     Size
       	       	      	       	      	
               Greatest Out- Migration Destinations 2004–2005                     	

       	    1	   Jefferson	Parish	         LA	     New	Orleans	                           40.1	   	 31,382	     2.08
       	    2	   St	Tammany	Parish	        LA	     New	Orleans	                            8.8	   	 49,477	     2.14
       	    3	   St	Bernard	Parish	        LA	     New	Orleans	                            4.0	   	 25,168	     2.24
       	    4	   Harris	County	            TX	     Houston	                                2.4	   	 61,757	     1.90
       	    5	   East	Baton	Rouge	Parish	 LA	      Baton	Rouge	                            2.2	   	 30,342	     1.75
       	    6	   St	John	The	Baptist	      LA	     New	Orleans	                            1.5	   	 32,109	     2.30
       	    7	   Dallas	County	            TX	     Dallas-Fort	Worth	                      1.2	   	 32,075	     2.10
       	    8	   St	Charles	Parish	        LA	     New	Orleans	                            1.1	   	 32,517	     2.37
       	    9	   Plaquemines	Parish	       LA	     New	Orleans	                            0.9	   	 38,480	     2.19
       	   10	   Los	Angeles	County	       CA	     Los	Angeles	                            0.7	   	 26,642	     1.31
       	   11	   Tarrant	County	           TX	     Dallas-Fort	Worth	                      0.7	   	 35,987	     2.01
       	   12	   Fulton	County	            GA	     Atlanta	                                0.7	   	 45,207	     1.76
       	   13	   De	Kalb	County	           GA	     Atlanta	                                0.6	   	 32,101	     1.73
       	   14	   Cook	County	              IL	     Chicago	                                0.6	   	 30,366	     1.42
       	   15	   Tangipahoa	Parish	        LA	     Hammond,	LA	                            0.6	   	 28,526	     2.08
       	     	   	                         	       	                                          	   	       	
       	     	   Greatest Out- Migration Destinations - 2005–2006	                            	   	       	            	
       	     	   	                         	       	                                          	
       	    1	   Harris	County	            TX	     Houston	                               19.5	   	 19,602	     2.35
       	    2	   Jefferson	Parish	         LA	     New	Orleans	                           13.2	   	 33,304	     2.00
       	    3	   East	Baton	Rouge	Parish	 LA	      Baton	Rouge	                            6.8	   	 28,149	     2.13
       	    4	   Dallas	County	            TX	     Dallas-Fort	Worth	                      5.1	   	 19,856	     2.29
       	    5	   St	Tammany	Parish	        LA	     New	Orleans	                            2.6	   	 42,675	     1.97
       	    6	   Tarrant	County	           TX	     Dallas-Fort	Worth	                      2.6	   	 21,679	     2.34
       	    7	   Bexar	County	             TX	     San	Antonio	                            1.6	   	 18,606	     2.23
       	    8	   Fulton	County	            GA	     Atlanta	                                1.5	   	 26,126	     2.14
       	    9	   De	Kalb	County	           GA	     Atlanta	                                1.4	   	 23,867	     2.18
       	   10	   Shelby	County	            TN	     Memphis	                                1.2	   	 26,571	     2.17
       	   11	   Cobb	County	              GA	     Atlanta	                                1.1	   	 23,174	     2.30
       	   12	   Travis	County	            TX	     Austin	                                 1.1	   	 29,640	     2.07
       	   13	   Lafayette	Parish	         LA	     Lafayette,	LA	                          1.0	   	 31,177	     2.02
       	   14	   Collin	County	            TX	     Dallas-Fort	Worth	                      1.0	   	 25,349	     2.24
       	   15	   St	John	The	Baptist	      LA	     New	Orleans	                            1.0	   	 31,309	     2.17
       	
       Source: Authors’ analyses of Internal Revenue Service migration data




   September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
incomes of New Orleans migrant flows to vari-            ery process and less likely to be represented in
ous county destinations. It is clear from this           2005–2006 New Orleans in-migrant population
that it more distant moves were most likely              as shown above.
associated with lower income IRS filers, whereas
close in moves to New Orleans metro and Baton            Finally, we turn more specifically to the origins
Rouge showed higher incomes. For the top ten             of in-migrants to the city of New Orleans based
2005–2006 destinations in Table 6, for example,          as registered with the IRS migration data. It is
only movers to the Louisiana parishes have               clear from Figure 6 (lower panel) that the origins
household incomes greater than the average               of 2005–2006 in-migrants are more prone to be
of all out-migrant streams ($26, 815). Movers            from the rest of New Orleans metropolitan area
to Jefferson Parish and East Baton Rouge Par-            than was the case in 2004–2005. In fact, nearly
ish had household incomes of $33,304 and                 4 out of 5 moves back to the city in 2005–2006
$28,149, respectively. In contrast, movers to            were either from the rest of the metro or the
farther away Texas counties of Harris and Dallas         rest of Louisiana. In contrast, only 7 percent of
had average household incomes of $19,602 and             arrivals came from Texas. It is certainly likely, as
$19,856. In particular, Harris County’s migrant          discussed in the Data and Methodology section
average household income went from the high-             that the far off in-moves might be underreport-
est, $61,757 of the destinations in 2004–2005 to         ed with the IRS data. But the overall magnitude
the lowest in 2005–2006. Movers to out of state          of close-in moves from local origins suggest this
counties also had more dependents per house-             is the dominant type of in move, and contrasts
hold than those who moved nearby. Thus, the              markedly from the distribution of out-migrants.
speculation that less well off movers were locat-        The primary origin counties for these moves
ing further afield are supported by this data.           (data not shown) were the parishes of Jeffer-
                                                         son, St Bernard, St. Tammany, and Plaquemines
It is the case that the primary destinations of          parishes in the New Orleans metro, and East
whites were more likely to be close in areas than        Baton Rouge Parish in the Baton Rouge metro
was the case for blacks. This is shown in Table          area. Together, these five parishes represented
7, based on the 2006 ACS migration data, which           55 percent of 2005–2006 in migrants to the city.
lists the most prominent metropolitan area               Moreover, the income data show that each of
destinations of whites and blacks for the 2005–          these in-migrant flows had average household
2006 period. For whites, moving to the rest of           incomes well above the average incomes of the
the New Orleans metropolitan area was by far             average out-migration flows from the city.
the most prominent location of out-migrants,
followed by moves to nearby Baton Rouge. For             In sum, this analysis of migration flows is con-
blacks, in contrast, the primary destination was         sistent with the view that black and low income
the Houston metropolitan area, followed also             city out-migrants were more prone to locate in
by nearby Baton Rouge. But Dallas and Atlanta            distant destinations than whites and higher-
are also significantly more prominent than               income movers. The latter were more likely to
destinations further down the list. This, coupled        move to the rest of the New Orleans metropoli-
with the lower incomes of movers who located             tan area or Baton Rouge, and were more repre-
to these more distant destinations, may explain          sented among 2005–2006 in migrants back to
why blacks were less networked into the recov-           the city.




                                              September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy 
              Figure 6. New Orleans Migrant Destination and Origin Distributions, 2004–2005 and 2005–2006
                                           OUT-MIGRATION DESTINATIONS

                                      2004-5                                                 2005-6
                               8.3
                                                                                           6.5
                                                                                                         18.3
                   13.1
                                                                             20.7

                 7.2
                                                                                                                 17.1

                   6.9                                64.5


                                                                                          37.5


                                                 IN-MIGRATION ORIGINS

                                      2004-5                                                 2005-6
                               11.6                                                        7.1
                                                                                  9.0

                   13.3                                                       4.0

                                                                            7.0
                   5.6
                                                         60.0

                         9.5                                                                                72.9




                                                             20.7


              Rest	of	New	Orleans	Metro              Rest	of	Louisiana
                                                              6.5 18.3
                                                                   17.1
                                                                                  Texas          Rest	of	South      Rest	of	US
                                                             37.5




           Source: Authors’ analysis of IRS Migration data




20   September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
                                                                                                                                                Memphis, TN-MS-AR

                                                                                                            Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR


                                                                                                                                                                                                    Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA

                                                                                                                                                                                 Birmingham-Hoover, AL




                                                       Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX
                                                                                                                         Monroe, LA
                                                                                               Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
                                                                                                                                                 Jackson, MS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Map 2. New Orleans City Out-Migrants, 2005–2006




                                                                                                                     Alexandria, LA



                                                                                                                                      Baton Rouge, LA
                                                                                                                                                                                            2005-2006 New Orleans City
                                                                                                                               Lafayette, LA            New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner, LA
                                                   Austin-Round Rock, TX
                                                                                                                                                                                            Out-Migrants
                                                                           Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land, TX                                                                                            less than 250
                                                                                                                                                                                                     250 to 499




    September 2007 The Brookings Institution
                                               San Antonio, TX
                                                                                                                                                                                                     500 to 999
                                                                                                                                                                                                     1,000 to 9,999
                                                                                                                                                                                                     10,000 or greater
                                                                                                                                                                                                     less than 10 migrants
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Select metro boundaries
                                                                                                                                                                                                     where average HH Adjusted Gross
                                                                                                                                                                                                     Income < $26,815 (overall out-
                                                                   Source: Authors' analysis of Internal Revenue Service migration data                                                              migrant average)




Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy 2
                                                                                          Conclusion
Table 7. New Orleans City Greatest 2005–2006 Out-Migration
Metros, Whites and Blacks
Rank Metro Area                  Share of Out-Migrants	                                   There is no doubt that the city of New
	        	                                	        	                                      Orleans looks different today than it did
	 estinations	for	Whites	
D                                              	                                          one year ago, as represented by the data
	 	 	                                          	                                          analysis here. However, examining the
	 1	 Rest	of	New	Orleans	Metro	                *
                                          28.6	 	
                                                                                          one-year period straddling the storm
	 2	 Baton	Rouge	                           8.0	
	 3	 Dallas-Fort	Worth	                     5.2	                                          and its aftermath marks an important
	 4	 Houston	                               3.6	                                          moment of change for New Orleans and
	 5	 Shreveport	LA	                         3.3	                                          surrounding parishes. This report gives
	 6	 Austin	                                2.8	                                          a first full picture—one year after the
	 7	 Pensacola,	FL	                         2.0	
                                                                                          storm—of how the socio-demographic
	 8	 Los	Angeles	                           1.9	
	 9	 Miami	                                 1.7	                                          profile of the region has changed as a
	 	 	                                          	                                          result of population shifts that occurred
	 	 All		White	Out-Migrants	           42,000	 	 (+/-5,499)**                             after hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit in
	 	 	                                          	                                          August and September of 2005.
D
	 estinations	for	Blacks	                      	
	 	 	                                          	
	 1	 Houston	                             24.5	 	
                                               *                                          The findings of this study show that the
	 2	 Rest	of	New	Orleans	                 13.4	                                           significant post-hurricane population
	 3	 Baton	Rouge	                         11.6	                                           shift greatly altered the race-ethnic com-
	 4	 Dallas-Fort	Worth	                     8.7	                                          position of the city and region by 2006.
	 5	 Atlanta	                                  *
                                            7.2	 	
                                                                                          While the city of New Orleans is still
	 6	 Shreveport,	LA		                       2.6	
	 7	 Lafayette,	LA		                        1.2	                                          majority black, nearly a year after the
	 8	 San	Antonio,	TX	                       1.1	                                          hurricane it had lost almost three-fifths
	 9	 Washington	DC	                         1.0	                                          of its original black population, as well
	 	 	                                          	                                          as more than a third of its whites. Thus
	 	 All	Black	Out-Migrants	                    (
                                      138,505	 +/-10,535)**
                                                                                          the city’s black share was reduced from
	 	 	                                          	
T
	 otal	Out-Migrants	(all	races)	      197,130	 +/-12,310)**
                                               (                                          67 percent in 2005 to 58 percent in 2006.
                                                                                          The metropolitan area also become less
*Significantly different from destinations below at 90% confidence                        black than was the case before the hur-
level                                                                                     ricane, but this was predominantly due
**	margin	of	error
Source: Authors’ analyses 2006 American Community Survey
                                                                                          to the loss of blacks from New Orleans
                                                                                          itself. The racial composition of the sub-
                                                                                          urbs changed minimally over the course
                                                                                          of the year.

                                                                                          The “before and after” comparisons on
                                                                                          other socio-demographic attributes
                                                                                          showed that the city of New Orleans’
                                                                                          population became older, more well
                                                                                          educated, less poor, and had a higher
                                                                                          percentage of homeowners and child-
                                                                                          less households as a result of the 2005–
                                                                                          2006 population shifts. The fact that
                                                                                          the metropolitan area evidenced similar


22   September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
changes reflected the fact that lower income
and black migrants moved to locations out-
side the metropolitan area, whereas the higher
income and white in-migrants were more apt to
move within the metropolitan area

Out-migrants during the 2005–2006 period
were more likely to be black, younger, poorer,
less well educated, and households with chil-
dren than those who did not migrate. Concur-
rently the much smaller in-migration flows were
more likely to be white, childless, better edu-
cated, and also younger than the non migrating
population. However the much larger volume
of younger out-migrants is what has contrib-
uted to the city’s 2006 older age structure. It is
clear that New Orleans lost a good share of it
young people, and especially young families—
populations which are necessary to energize
and sustain communities.

It is also apparent that a large segment of less
well off and black movers moved to Texas and
other far away places, and seem less likely to
have returned to the city by 2006. While pre-
hurricane New Orleans has long been noted
as an exceptionally rooted population, there is
some question about how many of these long
distance evacuees have returned in 2007 or will
eventually return if they become established in
their new locales.

Many questions remain about the future of the
population of New Orleans. Going forward it
will become harder to track the movements of
those displaced by Katrina, simply because the
data to do so will not be available. However we
will still be able to see the net effect of the Ka-
trina diaspora in the demographic composition
of the city and its surrounding suburbs.




                                                September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy 2
     References                                                                 Endnotes

     Claritas, 2007, “New Katrina Adjusted Popula-                              1. See for example, Louisiana Recovery Author-
     tion and Household Estimates.”                                                ity and Louisiana Department of Health and
     http://www.claritas.com/claritas/Default.                                     Hospitals, “Migration Patterns: Estimates of
     jsp?ci=1&pn=hurricane_katrina_data [ Accessed                                 Parish Level Migrations due to Hurricanes
     Sept, 2007]                                                                   Katrina and Rita” August 2007 and Claritas,
                                                                                   2007, “New Katrina Adjusted Population and
     Frey, William H. and Audrey Singer, 2006 “Ka-                                 Household Estimates.”
     trina and Rita Impacts on Gulf Coast Popula-                               2. In an earlier report (Frey and Singer, 2006)
     tions: First Census Findings” Washington DC:                                  which examined shifts between pre and
     The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy                                 post hurricane conditions between Janu-
     Program. http://www.brookings.edu/metro/                                      ary–August 2005, and September–Decem-
     pubs/20060607_hurricanes.htm                                                  ber 2005, a much greater shift in the metro-
     [Accessed Sept 2007]                                                          politan area’s race-ethnic composition was
                                                                                   reported, with the black share reduced to 21
     Frey, William H. 2007. “New Orleans: A ‘Whole                                 percent. This could reflect the fact that some
     Other City’?” The Times-Picayune, August 28.                                  black evacuees would later return, as well
     http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/                                         the inadequacies from a survey that was
     wfrey/20070828.htm                                                            taken in the midst of the immediate recov-
     [Accessed Sept 2007]                                                          ery period.
                                                                                3. See Katharine M. Donato, Nicole Trujillo-Pa-
     Gross, E. Internal Revenue Service Area-to-Area                               gan, Carl L. Bankston III, and Audrey Singer,
     Migration Data: Strengths, Limitations, and Cur-                              Reconstructing New Orleans After Katrina:
     rent Trends. IRS. 2005.                                                       The Emergence of an Immigrant Labor Mar-
                                                                                   ket,” in David L. Brunsma, David Overfelt, and
     Liu, Amy and Allison Plyer. 2007. “The New                                    J. Steven Picou (eds), The Sociology of Ka-
     Orleans Index: A Review of Key Indicators of Re-                              trina: Perspectives on a Modern Catastrophe,
     covery Two Years After Katrina” Washington DC:                                (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield, 2007).
     The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy
     Program and Greater New Orleans Community
     Data Center.
     http://www.gnocdc.org/KI/KatrinaIndex.pdf
     [Accessed Sept 2007]

     Singer, Audrey and Katharine Donato, 2005. “In
     Katrina’s Wake, Who Will Return?”
     http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-
     ed/20050927_singer.htm [Accessed Sept 2007]




2     September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
Appendix A. Population Change, Hurricane-Impacted Metropolitan Parishes and Counties, July 2004 to July 2006

                                                                                      July 2004–July 2005                July 2005–July 2006
Metropolitan Area and County/Parish                           Population                     Change                            Change
	 	                                                     	             	               Numeric    Percent                 Numeric    Percent
                                               July 2004     July 2005 July 2006      Change     Change                  Change     Change
Alabama	                                                 	            	          	            	          	                       	           	           	
Mobile,	AL	MSA	(1	component)	                    398,945	      399,851	   404,157	         906	       0.2	                  4,306	       1.1
	 Mobile	(Central	City:	Mobile)	                 398,945	      399,851	   404,157	         906	       0.2	                  4,306	       1.1
	 	                                                     	             	          	            	          	                       	           	
Tuscaloosa,	AL	MSA	(3)	                          194,567	      196,259	   198,769	       1,692	       0.9	                  2,510	       1.3
	 Greene	                                          9,676	        9,663	     9,374	         -13	      -0.1	                   -289	      -3.0
	 Hale	                                           18,109	       18,200	    18,236	          91	       0.5	                     36	       0.2
	 Tuscaloosa	(Central	City:	Tuscaloosa)	         166,782	      168,396	   171,159	       1,614	       1.0	                  2,763	       1.6
	 	                                                     	             	          	            	          	                       	           	
Louisiana	                                               	            	          	            	          	                       	           	
Baton	Rouge,	LA	MSA	(9)	                         725,725	      731,322	   766,514	       5,597	       0.8	                35,192	        4.8
	 Ascension	                                      86,926	       90,447	    97,335	       3,521	       4.1	                  6,888	       7.6
	 East	Baton	Rouge	(Central	City:	Baton	Rouge)	 410,410	       409,809	   429,073	        -601	      -0.1	                19,264	        4.7
	 East	Feliciana	                                 20,834	       20,703	    20,922	        -131	      -0.6	                    219	       1.1
	 lberville	                                      32,317	       32,160	    32,974	        -157	      -0.5	                    814	       2.5
	 Livingston	                                    105,707	      108,958	   114,805	       3,251	       3.1	                  5,847	       5.4
	 Pointe	Coupee	                                  22,378	       22,288	    22,648	         -90	      -0.4	                    360	       1.6
	 St.	Helena	                                     10,256	       10,138	    10,759	        -118	      -1.2	                    621	       6.1
	 West	Baton	Rouge	                               21,826	       21,634	    22,463	        -192	      -0.9	                    829	       3.8
	 West	Feliciana	                                 15,071	       15,185	    15,535	         114	       0.8	                    350	       2.3
	 	                                                     	             	          	            	          	
Houma,	LA	MSA	(2)	                               198,083	      199,004	   202,902	         921	       0.5	                  3,898	         2.0
	 Lafourche	                                      91,801	       91,910	    93,554	         109	       0.1	                  1,644	         1.8
	 Terrebonne	(Central	City:	Houma)	              106,282	      107,094	   109,348	         812	       0.8	                  2,254	         2.1
	 	                                                     	             	          	            	          	
Lafayette,	LA	MSA	(2)	                           245,143	      246,855	   254,432	       1,712	       0.7	                  7,577	         3.1
	 St.	Martin	                                    194,943	      196,627	   203,091	       1,684	       0.9	                  6,464	         3.3
	 Lafayette	(Central	City:	Lafayette)	            50,200	       50,228	    51,341	          28	       0.1	                  1,113	         2.2
	 	                                                     	             	          	            	          	                       	
Lake	Charles,	LA	MSA	(2)	                        193,832	      194,319	   192,316	         487	       0.3	                 -2,003	        -1.0
	 Calcasieu	                                     184,187	      184,708	   184,524	         521	       0.3	                   -184	        -0.1
	 Cameron	(Central	City:	Lake	Charles)	            9,645	        9,611	     7,792	         -34	      -0.4	                 -1,819	       -18.9
	 	                                                     	             	          	            	          	                       	
New	Orleans,	LA	MSA	(7)	                       1,314,229	    1,313,787	 1,024,678	        -442	       0.0	               -289,109	       -22.0
	 Jefferson	                                     452,083	      451,049	   431,361	      -1,034	      -0.2	                -19,688	        -4.4
	 Orleans	(Central	City:	New	Orleans)	           459,048	      452,170	   223,388	      -6,878	      -1.5	               -228,782	       -50.6
	 Plaquemines	                                    28,933	       28,903	    22,512	         -30	      -0.1	                 -6,391	       -22.1
	 St.	Bernard	                                    65,536	       65,147	    15,514	        -389	      -0.6	                -49,633	       -76.2
	 St.	Charles	                                    49,886	       50,554	    52,761	         668	       1.3	                  2,207	         4.4
	 St.	John	the	Baptist	                           45,394	       46,150	    48,537	         756	       1.7	                  2,387	         5.2
	 St.	Tammany	                                   213,349	      219,814	   230,605	       6,465	       3.0	                 10,791	         4.9
	 	                                                     	             	          	            	          	                       	
Mississippi	                                            	             	          	            	          	                       	             	
Gulfport-Biloxi,	MS	MSA	(3)	                     252,408	      254,616	   227,904	       2,208	       0.9	                -26,712	       -10.5
	 Hancock	                                        45,821	       46,546	    40,421	         725	       1.6	                 -6,125	       -13.2
	 Harrison	(Central	City:	Gulfport-Biloxi)	      192,129	      193,187	   171,875	       1,058	       0.6	                -21,312	       -11.0			
	 Stone	                                          14,458	       14,883	    15,608	         425	       2.9	                    725	         4.9

Hattiesburg,	MS	MSA	(3)	                         129,629	     131,402	    134,744	       1,773	         1.4	                3,342	         2.5
	 Forrest	(Central	City:	Hattiesburg)	            74,269	      74,915	     76,372	         646	         0.9	                1,457	         1.9
	 Lamar	                                          43,166	      44,429	     46,240	       1,263	         2.9	                1,811	         4.1
	 Perry	                                          12,194	      12,058	     12,132	        -136	        -1.1	                   74	         0.6

Jackson	MSA,	MS	(5)	                             515,384	     520,680	    529,456	       5,296	         1.0	                8,776	         1.7
	 Copiah	                                         28,998	      28,932	     29,223	         -66	        -0.2	                  291	         1.0
	 Hinds	(Central	City:	Jackson)	                 248,731	     248,124	    249,012	        -607	        -0.2	                  888	         0.4
	 Madison	                                        81,696	      84,169	     87,419	       2,473	         3.0	                3,250	         3.9
	 Rankin	                                        128,416	     131,521	    135,830	       3,105	         2.4	                4,309	         3.3
	 Simpson	                                        27,543	      27,934	     27,972	         391	         1.4	                   38	         0.1

Pascagoula,	MS	MSA	(2)	                          155,646	     156,742	    152,405	       1,096	         0.7	               -4,337	        -2.8



                                                                 September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy 2
Appendix A. Population Change, Hurricane-Impacted Metropolitan Parishes and Counties, July 2004 to July 2006 – Continued

                                                                                              July 2004–July 2005       July 2005–July 2006
Metropolitan Area and County/Parish                              Population                         Change                    Change
	 	                                                                                           Numeric    Percent        Numeric    Percent
                                                    July 2004   July 2005     July 2006       Change     Change         Change     Change

	    George	                                          20,711	       21,171	      21,828	          460	       2.2	             657	        3.1
	    Jackson	(Central	City:	Pascagoula)	             134,935	      135,571	     130,577	          636	       0.5	          -4,994	       -3.7

Texas	                                                   	                	            	             	          	                	              	
Beaumont-Port	Arthur,	TX	MSA	(3)	                 382,661	         383,140	     379,640	          479	       0.1	          -3,500	       -0.9
	 Jefferson	(Central	City:	Beaumont-Port	Arthur)	  50,232	          50,958	      51,483	          726	       1.4	             525	        1.0
	 Orange	                                         247,811	         247,185	     243,914	         -626	      -0.3	          -3,271	       -1.3
	 Hardin	                                          84,618	          84,997	      84,243	          379	       0.4	            -754	       -0.9

Houston,	TX	MSA	                                 5,232,777	 5,352,569	 5,539,949	     119,792	          2.3	            187,380	         3.5
	 Austin	                                           25,656	     26,018	     26,407	         362	        1.4	                 389	        1.5
	 Brazoria	                                        270,772	    277,821	   287,898	       7,049	         2.6	             10,077	         3.6
	 Chambers	                                         28,121	     28,491	     28,779	         370	        1.3	                 288	        1.0
	 Fort	Bend	                                       444,141	    466,231	   493,187	      22,090	         5.0	             26,956	         5.8
	 Galveston	                                       271,654	    277,330	   283,551	       5,676	         2.1	              6,221	         2.2
	 Harris	(Central	City:	Houston)	                3,695,348	 3,762,844	 3,886,207	       67,496	         1.8	            123,363	         3.3
	 Liberty	                                          74,939	     75,221	     75,685	         282	        0.4	                 464	        0.6
	 Montgomery	                                      362,981	    379,028	   398,290	      16,047	         4.4	             19,262	         5.1
	 San	Jacinto	                                      24,504	     24,784	     24,760	         280	        1.1	                 -24	       -0.1
	 Waller	                                           34,661	     34,801	     35,185	         140	        0.4	                 384	        1.1
	 	                                                        	          	           	            	           	                     	
*Hurricane-impacted	areas	are	those	receiving	FEMA	Assistance	on	October	7,	2005	for	Hurrricane	Katrina	or	October	20,	2005	for	Hurricane	Rita.
Source: Authors’ analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates




    2   September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy
Acknowledgments:
The authors are indebted to many colleagues at The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy
Program for their assistance: Brooke DeRenzis, David Jackson, Amy Liu, Elena Sheridan, and Jill
Wilson. We also owe a debt of gratitude to Allison Plyer of the Greater New Orleans Community
Data Center for her insights and advice. We are also grateful to Cathy Sun of the University of
Michigan Population Studies Center for her advice and assistance in formulating migration tabula-
tions from the American Community Survey and Internal Revenue Service data. Most importantly,
we wish to acknowledge the cooperation of and assistance of Susan Schechter, Lisa Blumerman and
Douglas Hillmer and their collegues at the US Census Bureau American Community Survey Of-
fice for their cooperation in giving us access and advice in guiding us through the ACS data.

The Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program thanks The Fannie Mae Foundation, The George Gund
Foundation, The Heinz Endowments, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and
The Rockefeller Foundation for their general operating support. In addition, Brookings would like
to thank The Annie E. Casey Foundation for its support of our research on concentrated poverty,
and Living Cities, Inc.: The National Community Development Initiative, for its support of analyses
of key demographic trends throughout the U.S.




For More Information:
William H. Frey
Senior Fellow
The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program
(202) 77-22 or -27-72
wfrey@brookings.edu


Audrey Singer
Senior Fellow
The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program
(202) 77-2
asinger@brookings.edu

For General Information
The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program
(202) 77-
www.brookings.edu/metro




                                          September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy 27
                                   THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
                                     77 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 200-2
                                               Tel: 202-77-000 Fax: 202-77-00
                                                         www.brookings.edu




                                            DIRECT: 202-77- FAX/DIRECT: 202-77-2
                                                        www.brookings.edu/metro
2   September 2007 The Brookings Institution   Special Analysis in Metropolitan Policy

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:15
posted:3/24/2013
language:English
pages:28